On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 10:59 +0100, Marius Tomaschewski wrote: > > >For now, I want to stay out of setting up static routes, but I think > > >that has to come sooner or later. > > It is OK to limit routes to the default route for now, but IMO > it is better to use separate xml nodes, e.g.: > > <static ipaddr="192.168.0.5" [netmask,broadcast,...] /> > and something like: > <route gateway="192.168.0.1" /> # implicit destination=default > <route destination="default" gateway="192.168.0.1" /> > > rather than mixing the gateway into the IP address related attributes: > > <static ipaddr="192.168.0.5" gateway="192.168.0.1" > netmask="255.255.255.0"/> > > because as soon as you start to support static routes, there are two > nodes/places where the default gateway can be defined. Yeah, that's a good catch; I'll change the schema accordingly. > Another way would be to say, there is either no STP parameter at all > (and use always stp="off" + fowarddelay=0) or only the STP parameter > and the backend implementation has to handle the another parameters > and write them "using real world defaults" into the ifcfg file. A third option would be to allow specifying parameters that only _some_ backends support, and produce an error, e.g. if you try to set maxage on Fedora. We don't necessarily have to support only the lcd. David -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list